MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197811059 · doi:10.1111/ene.15068

European Stroke Organisation and European Academy of Neurology joint guidelines on post‐stroke cognitive impairment

2021· article· en· W3197811059 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Terence J. Quinn, Edo Richard, Yvonne Teuschl, Thomas Gattringer, Melanie Hafdi, John T. O’Brien, Niamh A. Merriman, Céline R. Gillebert, Hanne Huygelier, Ana Verdelho, Reinhold Schmidt, Emma Ghaziani, Hysse Forchammer, Sarah T. Pendlebury, Rose Bruffaerts, Milija Mijajlović, Bogna Drozdowska, Emily Ball, Hugh S. Markus

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neurology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsMedicineCognitionStroke (engine)NeurologyHyperintensityCognitive declineRandomized controlled trialLeukoaraiosisMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPsychological interventionEvidence-based medicineMemantinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyPsychiatryDementiaCognitive impairmentMagnetic resonance imagingAlternative medicineDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The optimal management of post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) remains controversial. These joint European Stroke Organisation (ESO) and European Academy of Neurology (EAN) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians in decision making regarding prevention, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. METHODS: Guidelines were developed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The working group identified relevant clinical questions, performed systematic reviews, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and made specific recommendations. Expert consensus statements were provided where insufficient evidence was available to provide recommendations. RESULTS: There was limited randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence regarding single or multicomponent interventions to prevent post-stroke cognitive decline. Lifestyle interventions and treating vascular risk factors have many health benefits, but a cognitive effect is not proven. We found no evidence regarding routine cognitive screening following stroke, but recognize the importance of targeted cognitive assessment. We describe the accuracy of various cognitive screening tests, but found no clearly superior approach to testing. There was insufficient evidence to make a recommendation for use of cholinesterase inhibitors, memantine nootropics or cognitive rehabilitation. There was limited evidence on the use of prediction tools for post-stroke cognition. The association between PSCI and acute structural brain imaging features was unclear, although the presence of substantial white matter hyperintensities of presumed vascular origin on brain magnetic resonance imaging may help predict cognitive outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines highlight fundamental areas where robust evidence is lacking. Further definitive RCTs are needed, and we suggest priority areas for future research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0110.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0080.003
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations171
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeurologySame topicCerebrovascular and Carotid Artery DiseasesFrench-language works237,207